So you are a Judge Scalia fan? I'm trying to understand how I could be a "hippie" given my comment. I'd like to think you're being sarcastic., but I've been burned too many times making that assumption.

Pretty sure he was making a judgement based on you completely passing off his views as nothing and projecting your hate of him into your post.

I'm just going to get some popcorn now and watch this turn into a flamefest.

Scalia’s vote was decisive: A bare five-justice majority ruled that the First Amendment protected the right to burn the American flag. An incensed Congress quickly passed a federal statute banning flag burning nationwide—a law which the same five justices struck down the very next term.

In 2013, Alonzo Jay King, Jr., argued that by swabbing his cheek and logging his DNA in a statewide database, Maryland police had committed a search—without a warrant, as required by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Maryland’s attorneys likely expected Scalia to support the challenged law, which allowed law enforcement officers to collect and store DNA from any arrestee; after all, the justice had recently voted to allow strip searches of anyone apprehended by the police. Instead, Scalia responded to the state’s opening arguments with a brutal salvo of disbelief.
Later, when Scalia thought King’s attorney was making a bad argument, he jumped in to correct him, snipping, “I wouldn’t have made the concession that you’ve made.”Ultimately, Scalia’s vote wasn’t enough to invalidate Maryland’s law; the usually liberal Justice Stephen Breyer sided with the other conservatives to hold, 5–4, that the statute was constitutional. In response, Scalia wrote a piercing, acerbic dissent, parts of which he read from the bench. To Scalia, the most galling feature of the majority opinion was its acceptance of the notion that Maryland took King’s DNA simply to identify him—not to log his genetic sequence in a database, as it actually did. In describing this bald misrepresentation of the truth, Scalia essentially accuses the court of lying through its teeth.
Scalia then delivered what may be one of the most colorful lines in his entire oeuvre, proclaiming that “the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would not have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection.”

When Zackery P. Morazzini, the Supervising Deputy Attorney General of California, argued that California banned only “deviant” violent video games, Scalia sounded incredulous. “What’s a deviant violent video game? As opposed to—what—a normal violent video game?” he asked. “There are established norms of violence?”
Scalia also wondered why California singled out violence as worthy of censorship. When Morazzini suggested that exposure to violent images had a negative effect on children, Scalia seemed irked. Plenty of speech has a negative effect on children; does that mean it can all be banned? “What about excessive glorification of drinking?” Scalia demanded. “Movies that have too much drinking? Does that have an effect on minors?”
The justice then asked how the First Amendment could possibly be read to permit the censorship of violent expression. Justice Samuel Alito saw an entry, sneering, “Well, I think what Justice Scalia wants to know is what James Madison thought about video games.” The audience laughed—but Scalia still seized the last word.
A few minutes later, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked how, exactly, video game designers could know when their product crossed the line into “deviant” violence. Morazzini admitted video game designers had no way of knowing when their product become potentially criminal. At that point, Scalia jumped in, suggesting California create a board to review each game to determine whether its violence qualified as deviant or acceptable. “You should consider creating such a board,” he said. “I’d call it the California Office of Censorship.”

He was a conservative in his ideals, but on the bench he was a hardcore literalist and text-ist (textualist? textist?). The flag-burning law, while everyone and there mother has quoted on here, is really the best example. He 100% honestly did believe in Voltaire's old quote "I may not like what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". While he himself may not like the concept of someone burning the US flag, he recognized that they had every right to so long as they weren't harming anyone.

That's the kind of person you want interpreting laws in our highest court, because they're doing so without injecting their own opinion. The opinion comes after the ruling, not as the basis.

Scalia’s vote was decisive: A bare five-justice majority ruled that the First Amendment protected the right to burn the American flag. An incensed Congress quickly passed a federal statute banning flag burning nationwide—a law which the same five justices struck down the very next term.

In 2013, Alonzo Jay King, Jr., argued that by swabbing his cheek and logging his DNA in a statewide database, Maryland police had committed a search—without a warrant, as required by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Maryland’s attorneys likely expected Scalia to support the challenged law, which allowed law enforcement officers to collect and store DNA from any arrestee; after all, the justice had recently voted to allow strip searches of anyone apprehended by the police. Instead, Scalia responded to the state’s opening arguments with a brutal salvo of disbelief.
Later, when Scalia thought King’s attorney was making a bad argument, he jumped in to correct him, snipping, “I wouldn’t have made the concession that you’ve made.”Ultimately, Scalia’s vote wasn’t enough to invalidate Maryland’s law; the usually liberal Justice Stephen Breyer sided with the other conservatives to hold, 5–4, that the statute was constitutional. In response, Scalia wrote a piercing, acerbic dissent, parts of which he read from the bench. To Scalia, the most galling feature of the majority opinion was its acceptance of the notion that Maryland took King’s DNA simply to identify him—not to log his genetic sequence in a database, as it actually did. In describing this bald misrepresentation of the truth, Scalia essentially accuses the court of lying through its teeth.
Scalia then delivered what may be one of the most colorful lines in his entire oeuvre, proclaiming that “the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would not have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection.”

When Zackery P. Morazzini, the Supervising Deputy Attorney General of California, argued that California banned only “deviant” violent video games, Scalia sounded incredulous. “What’s a deviant violent video game? As opposed to—what—a normal violent video game?” he asked. “There are established norms of violence?”
Scalia also wondered why California singled out violence as worthy of censorship. When Morazzini suggested that exposure to violent images had a negative effect on children, Scalia seemed irked. Plenty of speech has a negative effect on children; does that mean it can all be banned? “What about excessive glorification of drinking?” Scalia demanded. “Movies that have too much drinking? Does that have an effect on minors?”
The justice then asked how the First Amendment could possibly be read to permit the censorship of violent expression. Justice Samuel Alito saw an entry, sneering, “Well, I think what Justice Scalia wants to know is what James Madison thought about video games.” The audience laughed—but Scalia still seized the last word.
A few minutes later, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked how, exactly, video game designers could know when their product crossed the line into “deviant” violence. Morazzini admitted video game designers had no way of knowing when their product become potentially criminal. At that point, Scalia jumped in, suggesting California create a board to review each game to determine whether its violence qualified as deviant or acceptable. “You should consider creating such a board,” he said. “I’d call it the California Office of Censorship.”

He was a conservative in his ideals, but on the bench he was a hardcore literalist and text-ist (textualist? textist?). The flag-burning law, while everyone and there mother has quoted on here, is really the best example. He 100% honestly did believe in Voltaire's old quote "I may not like what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". While he himself may not like the concept of someone burning the US flag, he recognized that they had every right to so long as they weren't harming anyone.

That's the kind of person you want interpreting laws in our highest court, because they're doing so without injecting their own opinion. The opinion comes after the ruling, not as the basis.

I disagree with such a notion. The constitution in my opinion should be interpreted by what would benefit a modern society. His views on Gay Rights were disturbing. Sure, do I believe the founding father would've upheld sodomy laws. Of course, but I see that as no reason to uphold them now. I find his ways ridiculously stodgy and dogmatic.

He was a conservative in his ideals, but on the bench he was a hardcore literalist and text-ist (textualist? textist?). The flag-burning law, while everyone and there mother has quoted on here, is really the best example. He 100% honestly did believe in Voltaire's old quote "I may not like what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". While he himself may not like the concept of someone burning the US flag, he recognized that they had every right to so long as they weren't harming anyone.

That's the kind of person you want interpreting laws in our highest court, because they're doing so without injecting their own opinion. The opinion comes after the ruling, not as the basis.

I disagree with such a notion. The constitution in my opinion should be interpreted by what would benefit a modern society. His views on Gay Rights were disturbing.

I don't particularly like his stance on gay rights either.
I think the Constitution should be interpreted literally though. If it's not up to modern standards, well, it is a living document and can be amended.

He was a conservative in his ideals, but on the bench he was a hardcore literalist and text-ist (textualist? textist?). The flag-burning law, while everyone and there mother has quoted on here, is really the best example. He 100% honestly did believe in Voltaire's old quote "I may not like what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". While he himself may not like the concept of someone burning the US flag, he recognized that they had every right to so long as they weren't harming anyone.

That's the kind of person you want interpreting laws in our highest court, because they're doing so without injecting their own opinion. The opinion comes after the ruling, not as the basis.

I disagree with such a notion. The constitution in my opinion should be interpreted by what would benefit a modern society. His views on Gay Rights were disturbing.

I don't particularly like his stance on gay rights either.
I think the Constitution should be interpreted literally though. If it's not up to modern standards, well, it is a living document and can be amended.

I can appreciate his literalist stance for some things. Our rights are important and should not be infringed in the most extreme of circumstances. In my opinion anyway.

He was one of the more prominent conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court since he was appointed by Ronald Reagan in the 80's. He's notable for being staunchly opposed to affirmative action, and abortion, while favoring the death penalty. He often released long, vitriolic opinions whenever he disagreed with the court's majority.

You barely scratch the surface, and don't really explore one of the most influential and important justices in Supreme Court history. To call Justice Scalia "conservative" is true enough, but that's not how he ruled from the bench. He was staunchly opposed to judicial activism, and was an originalist and textualist: Meaning he went with the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, but did so (vast oversimplification incoming), by looking at how the text of the Constitution (or of a law written last year) meant to the general population at the time those words were set into law. He believed that those legal issues meant to be decided by the people should be in fact decided by the people, not a few unelected judges.

His opposition to judicial activism was based on his disapproval of the court re-interpreting or ignoring written law on the particular issue being decided, but also due to his awareness of the Law of Unintended Consequences inevitably rearing its head.

He was one of the leading opinions on striking down the flag burning law, something that was popular with many conservatives, due to his firm stance on the 1st Amendment right of Free Speech. He would not hesitate to take his conservative colleagues to task when he felt that they were twisting the law in ways it could not be twisted. His takes on the liberal wing's activism is legendary. Vitriolic? Sure, but it was always more than that: His opinions were always profound, well-researched and often devastating.

But he was no mere rigid ideologue. His closet friend on the Court? The extremely liberal Ruth Bader Ginsberg. There is not a legal scholar alive, liberal or conservative, originalist or activist, who does not deeply respect Justice Scalia's record. Disagree? By many. Criticize, Many did, do and will in the future. But the respect is there, the knowledge that you're dealing with a genius level of legal intellect that only comes a few times a century.

And Justice Scalia might have the last laugh in the end. Many of his opinions will be embraced by some of his harshest critics should the court majority ever be composed of conservative activist judges, or if a president ever attempts to rule by presidential fiat against liberal/progressive agendas.

Back to the point, If you want the Constitution changed to meet progressive ways of thinking you simply get enough states to convene a Constitutional Convention, get a majority of the states representatives to ratify the amendments and you are done.
It can be done if the country wants it. Really.
When Blacks were denied rights at the voting booths by racists in the KKK and Democrat politicians the Constitutional amendment was ratified in 1870. Women got voting rights in the 20s. We gave the right to vote to 18 year old's during the peak of the Vietnam war so that they could at least vote for who was sending them into conflict. They were getting drafted and couldn't even vote for who was giving the orders.
Things got changed, without judicial activism.

We have a system of checks and balances, this extends to the courts.

Just because a new President seizes power the courts do not necessarily rule in his favor. The court has a very deliberate slow turnover rate to create stability.

I think this system was created because our Founding Fathers rightly believed that no changes to laws are preferable to bad changes. In keeping with that we do get gridlocked, people argue their prospective opinions and sometimes nothing happens.

The Constitution is not "a living" document. That is nonsense that has been popularized in the last 50 years by people who don't want to use the system to create change.. It changes when the vast majority of people want it and then elect representatives to act on that shift through the ratification of Amendments.

This article opens up some of the prospective s of how this is taught in schools. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/paul-lagarde/common-core-controversy-us-constitution-living-document

He was one of the more prominent conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court since he was appointed by Ronald Reagan in the 80's. He's notable for being staunchly opposed to affirmative action, and abortion, while favoring the death penalty. He often released long, vitriolic opinions whenever he disagreed with the court's majority.

You barely scratch the surface, and don't really explore one of the most influential and important justices in Supreme Court history. To call Justice Scalia "conservative" is true enough, but that's not how he ruled from the bench. He was staunchly opposed to judicial activism, and was an originalist and textualist: Meaning he went with the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, but did so (vast oversimplification incoming), by looking at how the text of the Constitution (or of a law written last year) meant to the general population at the time those words were set into law. He believed that those legal issues meant to be decided by the people should be in fact decided by the people, not a few unelected judges.

His opposition to judicial activism was based on his disapproval of the court re-interpreting or ignoring written law on the particular issue being decided, but also due to his awareness of the Law of Unintended Consequences inevitably rearing its head.

He was one of the leading opinions on striking down the flag burning law, something that was popular with many conservatives, due to his firm stance on the 1st Amendment right of Free Speech. He would not hesitate to take his conservative colleagues to task when he felt that they were twisting the law in ways it could not be twisted. His takes on the liberal wing's activism is legendary. Vitriolic? Sure, but it was always more than that: His opinions were always profound, well-researched and often devastating.

But he was no mere rigid ideologue. His closet friend on the Court? The extremely liberal Ruth Bader Ginsberg. There is not a legal scholar alive, liberal or conservative, originalist or activist, who does not deeply respect Justice Scalia's record. Disagree? By many. Criticize, Many did, do and will in the future. But the respect is there, the knowledge that you're dealing with a genius level of legal intellect that only comes a few times a century.

And Justice Scalia might have the last laugh in the end. Many of his opinions will be embraced by some of his harshest critics should the court majority ever be composed of conservative activist judges, or if a president ever attempts to rule by presidential fiat against liberal/progressive agendas.

I wasn't a fan of Scalia, either, but there's no doubt he was one of the big Justices in Supreme Court history who protected the US Constitution from distortion. Still, it was about time he was gone. I'm of the opinion that Supreme Court Justices should not be allowed to sit for the rest of their lives. There should be a term thing, just like for presidents, so we have Justices that are with the times. This may speed things up when it comes to deciding the most controversial issues.

I enjoy making horrible jokes for the reactions, though. I tell people God is dead, just like Scalia. They get quite offended so I stopped for now.

Since it is an election year, I hope the Republicans succeed in blocking any lame duck appointments (like the Dems vowed to do in a similar case); he stood against the absurd living breathing notion believing the constitution meant what it said it did. His brilliant dissent in the Obergefell decision (opposing the undemocratic creation of new rights by unelected judges) is just one example.